Gun Control Forum on Facebook Gun Control Forum on Google Plus Gun Control Forum on Twitter

Greetings Gun Control Debater

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In with Facebook Sign In with OpenID Sign In with Twitter

Popular Gun Control Forum Categories

In this Discussion

Obama chastises Senate over failed gun reform amendment

edited July 2016 in Gun Control Debates Posts: 7
The Senate on Wednesday rejected a bipartisan amendment that would have expanded background checks on gun purchases, a blow to advocates calling for more strict firearm laws after the mass shootings in Newtown, Conn., late last year.

Tagged:

Comments

  • The senates forgot that 90% of Americans (how often they agree on anything) support universal background checks and they (the one who has a heart and love the young generation not to die in vain) still remember massacre of the innocents in Newton, CT. Guns kill people, yeah that sounds cliche, the ignorants start to compare well "cars kill people". In order to drive the car you do have to have a valid driver license (universal background check to make sure their capability to drive) and will be reviewed upon extention every few years. Yes, sometimes even with the standard measurements, still accidents happen. Can you imagine when we let the bill pass into the law that people can drive without any license (hmm, I wonder 7 year old kid drives around your town), then your point is right, cars do kill people.
  • Posts: 5
    Your opinion, or anyone else's for that matter, is irrelevant. Gun control operates under Color of the Law."Art. VI paragraph 2. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."In order for anything to be considered a law in the U.S. it has to be in pursuance of the U.S. Constitution. "We the People of the United States, in Order to... secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. ( Preamble)" The security comes from ourselves, in our individual capacity. A right is defined to be a power, privilege, or immunity secured to a person by law. "Amend.II." CONTINUED NEXT
  • Posts: 5
    Amend. II. CONTINUED ~"... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Since a right is defined to be a power, privilege, or immunity secured to a person by law, I now refer to the X Amend. "The powers not delegated to the United States (Federal) by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The right to keep and bear Arms is what, by law, is known as a Reserved People Power. It is not delegated to the U.S. by the Constitution, and it is prohibited by it to the States in the words "... shall not be infringed." In reference to the regulation of the militia, the government has the authority to train and arm the people, but nowhere in the Constitution is authority given to deprive the people of arms. So, now that it's plain to see that, the only business it is, of who is armed, are the people themselves, in their individual capacity, advocates for gun control have lost their argument. All gun control in America, in any way, shape, or form, is against the U.S. Constitution, and is illegal and therefore criminal.
  • I agree with comprehensive background checks.  I think that we need to screen as many people as thoroughly as possible before putting a deadly weapon in their hands.  Sadly, the only things that really show up on background checks that prohibit guns are after the fact.  Someone has already flipped out and hurt someone.  A person could be issued a gun that has a clean  background because the haven't yet committed an atrocity or they haven't been caught.
  • I have a 12 gauge pump action mosberg shotgun 5 foot from me. And in the next room there's a .45, a few .22s, a .38, a muzzle loader-.50 calibur, a mini-14, and a few others. Guess how many people in my house have been killed by these rogue guns people talk about... none. Even the shotgun, right next to me, hasn't given me a mean look or said anything foul that might me me think he's wanting to kill me. I could even flip him off and tell him something mean about his mom, and he STILL won't kill me.Watch... see there? I'm not dead and I called his mom a horrible name.
  • They just want it to be more difficult for the American people to attain firearms. They are slowly, little by little, stripping away our right. They don't want us to be able to protect ourselves. If background checks are more extensive then it'll take much longer for people to get their guns. What does extensive even mean? How far back are they going to go? There's only so far you can go into someone's history. This also opens the door to the government being totally biased on any little thing they find that they don't like about you, and deeming it inappropriate for you to have a gun. It's just opening a can of worms and it's not a good idea.
  • Though I think that we do need to expand background checks for selling guns, we have to remember that this will not always pick up on someone who is psychologically damaged. What if nothing has happened in the past, but one day they snap? So a background check is not going to help with that. I don't know what we can do about those people.
  • Yeah good point nailah, it's a very touchy subject that you have to consider all sides about.
  • I agree with nailah.  That was kind of my point in the last sentence of my other post.  Also, with the extensive background checks, they would probably have to set the guidelines before putting the laws into effect.  I don't think that they would nitpick, but rather, if someone showed aggressive behavior prior to applying for a gun, they probably wouldn't be approved.  I know someone who got drunk and rowdy on a regular basis.  They got into fights for no real reason other than being drunk.  I would rather someone like that not have a gun while their decision making skills were impaired like that.  I trust most gun owners.  I know some safe ones.  I'm mostly worried about ones who are hotheaded.  In 2008, I lost two cousins to a murder-suicide.  They were brothers.  The older one was always picking on the younger and this time, they got into a heated argument.  The older one was shot by the younger, who then killed himself from remorse. 
  • Posts: 234
    I have no problem with a background check at all and yes I am a hunter and guns owner.You also get checked when you get a F.O.I.D card by the state police,at least in my state,and I have no problem with that and without a valid F.O.I.D card you can't buy or own a gun or buy ammunition or hunt or anything else to do with firearms and these are all good ideas.I don't know if all states are like this but if not they should be.The government needs to allow things about a individual to be on them background checks.
  • All States are like that, the first thing that happens when you walk into a gun store to buy a gun, after filling out a form 4473 kept on record at the gun store, is a NICS background check, this instant check involves National criminal records maintained by the Justice Department / F.ederal B.ureau of I.nvestigation, so any criminal record(s) that disqualifies a purchaser from possession of firearms will result in an instant Denial of purchase.
    As the NICS system is improved, performance in prevention also improves.

    There is another line of defense, the Police, All law enforcement officers perform a defacto background check when they stop a felon or other prohibited person with a firearm, they get arrested and the firearm confiscated, this further red flags this person even further, the only way they can purchase and possess firearms is to illegally aquire and possess them.

    Some people outside the norm, may aquire possession of firearms and go on to commit acts of folly and crimes or acts criminal in nature, however, these are a tiny percentage of the populace, and the only way to real with them is the hard line of defense, either the Police or an armed citizen, there is no real way to deal with a small percentage of people that either have an undiagnosed mental illness or become acutely mentally ill as opposed to chronic mental illness as defined by the latest DSM of mental illness.

    Most mentally ill people are not a threat to themselves or others and are undiagnosed, their primary care physician often is unaware of their condition, until it becomes a public safety issue, due to an arrest or a crime commited, and thus this person is placed into the care and observation and scrutiny by mental healthcare professionals / Psychiatrists etc..

    Problem is, if a tragic event happens, a mass murder, people ask why ?
    How could it have been prevented ? often times, it is prevented, then sometimes not, even though these events are mathematically predictable as far as probabilities and statistical analysis, we can't however predict the who and when it will happen, we can only know it will.

    A medical Doctor or general practitioner knows eventually someone will fall and fracture a limb, there is no way to know who, so provisions are made in advance, Emergency rooms, X-ray machines, casting supplies medications etc....
    Do we ban or eliminate the cause ? falls ? sports ? bicycles ? no, people will fracture bones and even die in a fall or cause related events related to an accident and it is accepted as the norm of human events.

    It is the same case with mental illness, it is treated if and when it becomes an issue, most mentally ill people are otherwise, undiagnosed and untreated, perhaps thought of as "eccentric" in their affect or behavior, anxiety, OCD, depression, being common mental illnesses that affect many people that live otherwise normal unaffected productive lives.

    The current system of checks and balances works very well, only a tiny minority or fraction of the populace, ever reach a point of grave danger to themselves and others, and a large number may pre-empt their dangerous actions to others, by the act of suicide.

    In a perfect World, you would not see mass murders, however, look at Hitler, one of histories mass Murderers, and how long he got away with Murder untill he commited suicide, how does society excuse or condone those 6 million plus deaths ? and yet expect to prevent smaller scale deaths ?
  • Posts: 9
    here is the reality of all this gun control nonsense .. this is the truth .. this is what Americans think and want ..... also pay close attention to the adfly link videos in the description .. The world is not blind ...
  • Posts: 24
    Well I know that I for one get a little frustrated when I see headlines like this.  It makes makes me shake my head, sit back, and say "okay, well now what".  This is all fine and dandy but we hear this all the time, and then it never goes anywhere.  I think more than anything people are just wanting some closure or action on the issue, and less of the back and forth talking.  That is my opinion, anyway, but I very well could be wrong.  Thanks for sharing.
Sign In or Register to comment.